dismissed EB-1A Case: Kite And Lantern Art

U.S. DepadmewP of Homeland SecuriQ 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Wm. A3342 
Washington, 8@ 20529 
S. Citizenship 
md Immigration 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: -%-- + 7 3fld0j t ._?U 
Iipd RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITKIN: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extrao~dinaxy Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the li gration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 I%3(b)(li)(A) 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. Pall documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
3 \ bGLkL 
\ u 
pobert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Ofice on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based idgrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1 E53(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established that he qualifies for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shdl first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
descrikd in any of the followjlng subparagraphs (A) though (C): 
(A) Miens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subpxagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field though extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work "k the area of 
extraordinaq ability, md 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively she 
United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinxy ability9' means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that ara alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed helow. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on October 12, 2004, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a "Festive Lantern, Kite AWist, Merchant." The statute and regulations require the petitioner's acclaim to 
be sustained. The record reflects that the petitioner has been residing in the United States since June 1998. 
Given the length of time between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition9 s filing date 
(more than six years), it is reasonable to expect the petitioner to have earned national acclaim in the United 
States during that time. The petitioner has had ample time to establish a reputation in this country. 
The lregnlation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained ~ational or 
international acclaim through evidence of a om-dime achievement (that is, a ma~or, international recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an awad, the regulation ozatiines ten criteria, at least lhee of which 
must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentabion ofthe alien's receipt sf lesser natioaally oor internationally orecognizedprizes or 
awardsfor excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted the foBlowing: 
1. ""Award Certificate" for "Excellence in Rower Lantern Design in the sth Annual Art Festival of 
Shenyang City9' (1994)' 
2. Certificate for "Fourth award in Qiaoshi Cup 5h National Kite Contest9' (1995) 
3. Certificate for "First award of tbe Big Solid type of kite Designs in Qiaoship Cup 5" National Kite 
Contest9' (1995) 
4. Certificate for 'Third Place award of the T"' hual Kaifeng htemational Rite FestivaB" (1993) 
5. Certificate from "The Folk Artists' Association" issuing the petitioner "the Title of Chinese Folk Art 
Expea" (1999) 
4. Certificate stating that the petitioner "won the Excellence Award at the 2nd Annual International Kite 
Festival in Beijing" (1989) 
7. Certificate for "First Place award in the 2nd huaB International Kite Festival of Kaifeng" (1993) 
8. Certificate for "First Place award in the 31d Annual Countrywide IKnte Festival of Kaifeng" (1993) 
9. Ceaificate for "First Place award among the Phoenix type in the 31d Annual Countrywide Kite 
Festival of Maifeng" (1993) 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign Bangenage submitted to Citizenship and 
Irmigration Services (CIS) shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator has 
certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate 
from the foreign language into English. The translations accompanying the petitioner's award certificates 
were not certified as required by the regulation. 
In regard to items I though 9, there is no evidence of publicity surrounding the petitioner's awards or 
evidence showing that they enjoy a significant level of recognition. Simply receiving an award certificate 
with the word ""national" or "international" in the title does not satisfy this very restrictive criterion. Because 
the statute ~equires "extensive documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim, the petitioner 
must submit contemporaneous evidence showing that his awards enjoy significant national or international 
statu~e.~ In this case, the record contains no documentation from the awarding entities or print media to 
establish that the petitioner's awards are nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence. 
' This award reflects local recognition rather than natiocal or intesnationa3 recognition. 
2 For example, large-scale competitions typically issue event programs listing the order of events and the names of the 
participants. At a competition's conclusion, results are usually provided indicating how each participant performed in 
relation to the other competitors in his or her events. The petitioner, however, has provided no evidence of the official 
comprehensive results for the competitions in which he received awards. 
H8n addition to the above deficiencies, the record contains no evidence showing that the petitioner has won any 
significant a-wards subsequent to 1999. The absence of such awards indicates that the petitioner has not 
sustained whatever acclaim he my have earned in China during the 1990's. 
Documentation ofthe alien's membemhip in associations in the fieldfor which classification 
is sought, which require outslanding achievements oftheir members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experss in their disciplines orfields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for dmission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recornendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this cll-Eterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. In addition, it is clear from the regulatory language that members be seiected at the 
national or international level, rather than the local or regional level. Therefore, membership in an association 
that evaluates its membership applications at the local or regional chapter level would not qualify. Finally, 
the overall prestig~, of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that his '"award for . . . membership issued by the Artists' Association of 
China" satisfies this criterion. The record, however, includes no documentation of the petitioner's 
membership in the "Artists' Association of China." Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not suficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 
22 I&W Dec. 858, 865 (Corn. 1998) (citing Matter sf Treasure Cra$ of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Com. 1972)). 
The petitioner submitted a certificate from 'The Folk Artists' Assxiation" confen-kg upon him "the Title of 
Chese Folk Art Expert." It has not been established, however, that receiving this title is tantamount to 
membership in the Folk Mists' Association. Nevertheless, there is no evidence of the bylaws or official 
membership requirements of the Folk Mists' Association to demonstrate that admission to membership 
requires outstanding achievement or that the petitioner was evaluated by national or international experts in 
consideration of his admission to membership. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the$&, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted what he alleges is evidence of his authorship of an article entitled "Aesthetic 
Character of the Kite9' in the Yanbian Nevvs Daily. The translation accompanying this article was not certified 
as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Furthermore, there is no evidence showing that this 
article was actually published under the petitioner's name or evidence of its significant national or 
international distribution. Nor is there supporting evidence showing that the petitioner's article is viewed 
throughout his field as significantly influential. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he meets at least thee of the criteria that must be satisfied 
to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as m alien of extraordinary ability. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himelf to such m extent that he my 
be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the 
very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him sig,ificantly above 
almost all others in his field at a national or intennational Bevel. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act md the petition may not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h$(5) requires 'kclar evidence that the 
alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include 
Better(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of premanged commitments such as contracts, or a 
statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the 
United States." The September 18, 2004 letter accompanying the petition does not adequately detail how the 
petitioner intends to continue his work in the United States. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the A40 even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, lnc. v. United States, 229 IF. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), am. 345 P.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. i1%IS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (28 Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the ablove stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
Ol3xNER: The appeal is dismissed.